Internet

>Would banning phone users save the internet?
probably not but i could be better

Women and brown people. The regression to the mean.

Attached: 1459853170050.jpg (442x564, 134K)

A quick survey on how to behave on the internet,or something like that

No because websites host with too much greed in mind.

Ads are mostly just toxic garbage now

The problem with the internet is advertising.
Remove that and anyone trying to profit on the internet and it will be better.
Kids growing up wanting to become a streamer is not a nightmare anymore, it is very common.

The quality of content in communities I'm not a part of doesn't concern me, I know Twitter et al are cancer so I left. My only problem are the ads and privacy issues. If it's money these sites need I'll gladly pay a reasonable fee for the services my life depends on like the Google suite, imageboards, social media, online vidya etc. This would no doubt remove tons of underage kids, pajeets and chinese scammers who cause others problems anyways.

Normies and the monopolization by reddit, google, facebook, et al.

>paying Botnet Suite
>using Botnet Suite

Attached: I wonder who's behind this post.png (500x560, 11K)

>he thinks websites exist on an ephemeral magic network

How the fuck do you expect pages to fund their infrastructure and content creation costs if they don't charge you money to use their website? Do you realize that you're mentally retarded?

>claims to not be a normie
>has ZERO understanding of how networks work
this board is probably the least technologically informed board on 4channel

>implying that won't lead to even more sensationalized 'news' and disguised clickbait

A better solution would be to create standards for ads. Clear labeling, and no obnoxious crap that pops up over the desired content should be enough. Advertisers profit, people get paid, and jankiness resulting from adblocking plugins would be a thing if the past.

Not creating an awful experience with ads and datamining would probably increase revenue in the long run as people won't actively avoid advertised products and brands out of justified spite, or block them entirely.

Is this not a sane idea?

Attached: 13780d70-bb57-493d-ae62-3b623e625f97..jpg (600x450, 43K)

Let's make our own internet on port 81

>why is so shit these days?
Do you not see the color of the hands holding those devices? That is why.

Attached: 1544483410167.png (400x400, 4K)

I don't want to reply to bait but I really have to get this off my chest. Google and it's services are, objectively, superior to most others. Gmail is better than Yahoo and Outlook. Google drive is better than OneDrive and Dropbox (Well, at least in my opinion). Google maps and Google translate have no real competition. I actually prefer duckduckgo over Google search but GS is a more widely supported by mobile devices and etc by default so I got comfortable with it. Not to mention Android, chromium, their cloud services, ai services.

They are a large company full of some of the best engineers and they make good software. You retards only call it >le botnet because of rms brainwashing and the fact that with the current way the web is run they have to collect info to make any profit.

>Botnet is better than Botnet and Botnet

Attached: 1483062758507.jpg (526x482, 27K)

The internet is no longer just for white men.

It's not my fault the American people have literally no say in how their country is run, is it now? Also even implying any human being should be subject to the torture that is using freetard productivity software makes my stomach turn.

Hahahaha. You don't even see your own madness. A sane idea would be to do away with advertising completely. Fuck ads.

So how do we fund content? At the ISP level by acknowledging that an ISP is acting as transit for a user wanting data from elsewhere kinda like the electricity grid acting as transit for a user wanting to buy electricity from elsewhere. So the user pays a small monthly fee for the connection, a set rate for data they request, and also receives a smaller credit for data someone else requests from them. Billed quarterly like any other utility. The idea needs some work to figure out who initiates in a given protocol and the amounts need to be figured out, but it's sound.

>gmail has no real competition
>google maps has no real competition
>using cloud storage at all
fucking idiot, get off the net

>I have no idea how servers work or how content production works
stop posting

You're so fucking stupid.

One of these days I'm going to work out the specifics of how to detect who should be charged for a connection, protocol by protocol, just to shut you ad-swilling idiots up. Then I'll make my own ISP. With blackjack. And hookers.

>futurama reddit memes
suicide

Ads have nothing to do with the fucking protocol or size of data. Ads fund content. Ads will NEVER go away, as they allow users to view content that has to be funded without directly paying for the content.

Ads are a net good thing. I do, however, believe that all websites with ads should have ad-free versions as long as you pay for their content.

Ads are a net bad thing you moron. As shown by all the privacy invasion, tracking, drm, and malware they bring. Remove the incentive for ads by creating a better, fairer funding model at the ISP/protocol level, and actively push for everyone to use adblocking. Then ads will go away.

(btw I've never used reddit in my life)

>cost
Anyone else remember when self hosted websites on some guys home pc were more common?
Assuming a sane and minimal web like in the 90's and early '00 what costs are there?
>hosting
None host it yourself
>traffic, ddos, etc.
Not a problem if you use hardware and software that doesn't suck
>Muh java script cancer and relational databases and fucking memory hog applets and money whoring with ads and miner scripts.
This is what's killing the web, if you use minimal software practices you minimize cost. The reason the web is a bloated mess is because no one is there to tell these retards no while they were making 500mb java script aids websites to serve images and fucking hypertext.

Fuck the website maintainers I don't owe them shit. It's this slave mentality that allows these greedy bastards to shit up sites that should just be hypertext with gigs of scripts. If you think you owe these assholes you are a part of the problem.

You're wrong. You're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of how ads came to exist on the internet, why they exist in their current form, and you're vastly blowing their effect on your privacy out of proportion.

inb4 JEW XDDDDD

>assuming it is 20 years ago
it isn't, stopped reading

>I deserve to connect to other peoples servers and ingest their content for free

unironically retarded

average people have shitty interests, and there are more people using the internat today than at any point in history

Try using wiby.me it is a search engine that only finds pages that are web 1.0 and non commercial

Attached: button.gif (88x31, 2K)

If someone publishes content online then I have every right to choose what parts of it I request and how I display it on my computer.

>Separate wireless from wired internet
I REALLY hope this is a joke.
I bet you call it a wifi cable as well...

and they have every right to deny your request if you don't view the ads

Sure. At which point their audience drops to near zero because nobody wants to put up with mandatory malware like that. There's a reason the vast majority of websites don't pull bullshit like that, and it's not just because the protocols involved don't work that way.

while your proposed approach is retarded, I understand your point. virtually the same thing is already achieveable by intranets, and there is also deep web

At which point everyone stops providing free content and locks it behind a paywall or they stop making the content at all.

Enjoy being responsible for the death of the internet.

>nobody will create content if they aren't allowed to serve privacy invading malware with it
>there are no other viable monetising possibilities aside from privacy invading malware
Well look at the big fallacies on you, faggot.

>he doesn't realize that we have ads because paywalls suck and 99.999% of people are okay with this tradeoff

>What went wrong? why is so shit these days? Would banning phone users save the internet?

Ads are a systemic issue, they changed how the internet was used and now most retards see it as a way to make money.
If the topic is how the internet could be fixed then I believe I am right as well as you.
People do also feel entitled to content and I agree that web operators do have the right to deny service. And while the entitlement of most users is an issue I see current practices as more harmful.
It doesn't excuse the shitty web design that's common, and overall we have regressed. I block ads as it is also my right as a client, and I actively avoid websites that shit up everything as I described.
The internet used to be a tool, as were computers, the move away from that mindset has been harmful overall for everyone except the greedy assholes that make 20% more money. These people are bot your friends and don't owe you anything. It's killing the internet and each year what was a useful tool and asset to people is more and more turning into a clickbait youtube videos and Facebook twitter social media hellhole with less substantial content and more money grubbing and shilling.

>he doesn't realise that paywalls and privacy invading malware aren't the only two monetisation possibilities

Oh, and also 15-50% of people are using adblockers depending on website demographic and that percentage is still rising.

Abolishing serfdom was a mistake.

Yes. We need every phone poster and macfag banned.

Like it matters, it's only going to get worse, it will never get better and faggots like the entitled shill subhuman in this thread and all the other cock gobblers like him are going to insure it only will get worse.
We could come up with a final solution, just think how this thread wouldn't even exist if that faggot wasn't breathing.

Hello my abomination doujin